Special Report

HR 1 is an unconstitutional act of election sabotage

HR 1 will alter the basic fundamental rights of states such as:

  • Remove voter ID requirements by states
  • Force speech onto you and I, by making us pay for speech we disagree with
  • Strip states of redistricting powers
  • Allow illegal ballot harvesting which denies election security

So, why is HR1 illegal?  We must look at the 2000 Bush/Gore SCOTUS case to truly understand how Democrats are attempting to overthrow our government.

The court first laid down the facts regarding our constitution and how it grants states the individual right to govern their elections.

“[e]ach State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,”

The court then made it abundantly clear who has the authority to create statewide elections, and it isn’t the federal government.  

“The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College.”

The U.S. House of Representatives has no power to direct states on how to conduct their elections other than abiding by the principles found in the 14th amendment.  The 14th amendment requires that states conduct elections with equality.  This means each voter, regardless of nationality, religion, political affiliation, etc., all have the exact same access to election processes.  The 14th amendment also requires that each vote is treated equally by how that vote is counted.

When the Bush/Gore case came before the court they affirmed the right of state legislative bodies to conduct their own elections.

“A significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question.”

SCOTUS had to wrestle whether or not the Florida Supreme Court overstepped its boundaries by changing Florida’s legislative intent in regards to election laws.

“This inquiry does not imply a disrespect for state courts but rather a respect for the constitutionally prescribed role of state legislatures. To attach definitive weight to the pronouncement of a state court, when the very question at issue is whether the court has actually departed from the statutory meaning, would be to abdicate our responsibility to enforce the explicit requirements of Article II.”

The justices made the correct argument that state courts do not have arbitrary power over the state legislature.  The courts can only judge statutes and not create new ones to suit their desires which violates the separation of powers doctrine.  However, we can directly apply this to HR1 since the federal government is attempting to deny states their “constitutionally prescribed role” for conducting their elections.

If there should be any question as to how the Supreme Court views this issue then this one statement sums it up.

“in a Presidential election the clearly expressed intent of the legislature must prevail.”

The justices are stating that legislative intent is where the authority to conduct an election comes from, and therefore, must be the standard by which each election is judged.

The Supreme Court rejected 170,000 Florida ballots in 2000 because the Florida Supreme Court attempted to fundamentally alter state election laws.  Furthermore, they attempted to count ballots with a process that denied the equal protection of each voter.

The court really drove home the point of who has the authority to set election law.

“State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution.”

“When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. “

The justices then made a point about how ballots are to be counted which goes back to the rights of state legislatures.

“In certifying election results, the votes eligible for inclusion in the certification are the votes meeting the properly established legal requirements [set by the state legislature].”

Therefore, let us summarize the arguments made during the Bush/Gore Supreme Court case and how they impact HR1:

  • State legislatures have the authority to direct their own electors.
  • Once the state vests power to direct electors to the citizen, then each citizen must have equality of access to the election’s process.
  • States must abide by the legislature’s intent of election law, and courts and state actors do not have the authority to alter those processes at will.
  • One county may not bestow upon themselves privileges that grant them greater voting strength so as to dilute the weight of the vote by the one man.
  • Only votes cast in a manner that is prescribed by law may be counted in the state’s certification of its election.
  • If a state legislature requires:
    • Voter ID to prove who you are when you vote
    • Each voter to show up in person to vote
    • Each voter to vote in their district
    • Signatures to match on ballots
    • Then they have the constitutional right to mandate all of those requirements so long as they are applied equally to each voter.
  • HR1 is unconstitutional because it denies state legislatures their fundamental right to direct their own elections.
  • Lastly, HR1 forces you to engage in political speech you disagree with because you are directly funding political campaigns with your taxes. The idea that legislators, by an act of their pen, can fund their personal campaigns against your will is a criminal and violent abuse of human rights.


The Socratic Conservative

Unless our elected leaders start speaking to the heart of these radicalized ideas, then our arguments are in vain.  Simply put, I would ask Rep. Axne the following questions:

  • Why do you believe that you have a right to force Iowans to fund your political speech against their will or desire?
  •  Why are you attempting to rob your state’s legislature of their fundamental rights? 
  • Why don’t you care if foreigners vote in our elections to rob Americans of their sovereignty? 
  • Why are you ignoring the constitution by passing a law whose aim is to sabotage all future elections by removing integrity, security, and honesty from the election process?

NOTE:  I’m using Democrat Rep. Cindy Axne as an example because she won her race by 1.3% in 2020 and can’t handle too much heat. Only when House Republicans start targeting vulnerable members of the DNC will they have the success they are looking for.

‘Overworked Supreme Court’ Vintage Painting
Keppler, Joseph Ferdinand, 1838-1894


Send a Message